I think this historical account of what the Mass was like prior to Vatican II (and still present after Vatican II in the Reformed Mass) is a bit hyperbolic, although it contains truths that I experienced as a young child.
If you got to Mass by the Gospel and stayed until Communion, you fulfilled your obligation. Yes, some came late and left early and they still do! At least they are there for part of the Mass rather than not going altogether. In pre-Vactian II time nearly 90% or more of Catholics attended at least a part of the Mass! Compare that to today’s reformed Mass.
With so many foreign born priests today, no one understands the priest and often they attend Mass which is only in Spanish in this country or a mix of Spanish, English and maybe even other languages making those parts of the Mass unintelligible to the Language they know.
But read the full article by pressing the title, with a money byte below the title:
The Liturgy Prior to Vatican II and The Council’s Reforms
Within this overall pastoral situation, a few particulars must be noted. First, while many priests celebrated Mass in a reverent manner, there were those who did not. The faithful were aware, and often pleased, that certain priests were able to “run through” the liturgy in fifteen or twenty minutes, especially on weekdays. A vivid description of the state of affairs prior to the Council is given in a blog post by Msgr. Charles Pope:
As for there being no abuses before 1970, dream on. All the old guys I trained under for the Latin Mass (back in the mid 1980s) told me that it was dreadful how the mass was celebrated in the old days: mumbled Latin, skipped prayers, half genuflections, not even waiting for the servers to finish before moving on to the next prayer; masses that should have taken a good 40 minutes to celebrate reverently were routinely done in 18 minutes. Communion was routinely distributed in larger parishes by priests, beginning immediately after the gospel, while the priest celebrant went on with the current Mass; sung liturgies were abhorred by most clergy and when they did sing them they were usually done in a horrible and tortured tone with indistinct pronunciation since they were not used to enunciating the Latin, but mumbling it. So when they sang, most just mumbled aloud. I have heard recordings from the time and can personally affirm that homilies were often skipped, even on Sundays. Most of the old guys said the Corpus Domini nostri prayer while they gave communion to as many as five people, mumbling it as a norm. The Liber Usualis had long been abandoned by most parishes and they used recto tono (usually 8th tone) chanting in its place . . . . People came late and left early and had legalistic notions that if they made it by the gospel they were safe. Leaving after communion was epidemic.[2]
8 comments:
Repeating lies does not make them true. I was trained before the Council and was an altarboy. Our normative grade school Mass was the Missa Cantata, everything sung that could be, not rushed, and quite beautiful. Our primary Sunday Mass was the same. When I see phrases like "the Latin was mumbled" I know we are dealing with someone who has no idea what the rubrics of the TLM were. The Canon was silent, and to the ignorant, it was "mumbled."
Stastitics demonstrate that in the US at least, the TLM was wildly successful, compared to the Novus Ordo. I rest my case.
Again, I was alive and kicking before Vatican 2 and none of what is described here took place in my experience. If some of this took place, it was certainly exception and not rule. Catholicism was lived and not just practiced back then; and Holy Mass was in fact holy. That Mass is no longer holy is the cause of our present troubles.
In a sense, the linked article is irrelevant, because to a great degree, it is debating a straw man. So many who don't like the TLM, or who don't get why it appeals to new generations, make the mistake of thinking it is nostalgia. That hugely misses the point.
Far more often, I think, people are drawn to the TLM for reasons having nothing to do with the "old days." Therefore, this argument -- that the "good old days weren't so good" -- entirely fails.
A more pertinent argument would be to higghlight examples of abuse in the TLM today, in order to show that perhaps the TLM isn't the refuge from abuse people claim it is. Isn't it funny that such an argument is NOT being made -- but rather, the argument always refers to how the TLM was celebrated two, even three generations ago? It is such a woolly headed argument! It seems to be, "You are wrong to think the TLM today is so much more reverent, because back in the day, it really wasn't!" Um, OK?
The strength of the ‘TLM’ is in how easily it can be corrected. The reason it is so well suited to transmission to other cultures is not that it proselytizes European ways but that it is an objective standard for execution and development of Faith that is universal. So even the Europeans don’t get a pass for deviations of the TLM, but there seems to be no right or wrong way to do a NO Mass.
I liked your explanation of meeting the Obligation. This came in handy while I was in the military. My good friend, who is also Godfather to my eldest child, referred to this as the Mass of Convenience so we could return to duty as quickly as possible.
Fr. Fox,
Spot on - it’s is the old moral equivalence argument they are using. The alleged “abuses” of 60 years ago pale in comparison to the clown show at St. Sabina’s in Chicago or saying Mass on a water float in Italy. Most criticism comes from the intellectually lazy and sloppy
In order to fulfil the obligation the faithful need to be present for the Offertory, the Consecration and the priest's Communion. I believe this was laid down by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and remains in force.
The idea of the congregation assembling for the start of Mass is a relatively modern one; in the cathedrals and abbeys of the Middle Ages Mass would have been sung in the choir, preceded by terce, and could be a lengthy affair - to insist on the faithful being present throughout would have been excessive.
There were no pews or benches in the nave, and one can envisage a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing, as is the case in Orthodox churches.
John Nolan,
Quite right
Given the fact that Fr. Thomas is a theologian widely known and respected for his orthodoxy I don't think that his work could be classified as lazy or sloppy.
I don't know anything about the other authors of these articles.
I don't agree with the opinion that ad populum worship is in any way superior to ad orientum use in the NO.
Yes,the Canon was to be prayed sotto voce but other parts were mangled and mumbled.
The requirements to meet the obligation established at Lateran IV were minimalistic, betrayed a sense that the Liturgy really was the "priest's Mass" and encouraged and promoted a lack of reverence among the faithful.
Trying to draw some parallel to the Orthodox Liturgies where Orthros or the Third Hour is offered before the Holy Mysteries is not accurate. Faithful Orthodox know that to show up after the Synaxis is considered disrespectful not only of the worship offered but also of the ekklesia gathered. That people ignore this is not to be encouraged or used as an example.
The way the TLM was offered in the past could be rushed, shoddy and irreverent. Those priests who offer it today are much more deliberate and focused not on "getting through" it but on offering reverent worship.
These might be generalizations but the seem to hold true in the memories of myself and many others.
That the TLM as it is usually offered today with devotion and deep reverence proves that priest's offering truly appreciate it. After the recent restrictions I've only seen this more pronounced where I live.
Post a Comment